|
|
Posted by Jonathan N. Little on 02/17/07 01:15
TaliesinSoft wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:04:08 -0600, dorayme wrote (in article
> <doraymeRidThis-26D5D5.11040817022007@news-vip.optusnet.com.au>):
>
>> In article <0001HW.C1FB86DE003D9B46B022094F@news.supernews.com>,
>> TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I actually considered having the width be flexible, as in your "Better
>>> Way" example, but rejected it. Why I can't exactly remember at the
>>> moment, but when the brain cells bounce properly I'll post the reason.
>> Let me jog your memory. It was because I told you to do it ages ago and no
>> one ever does a single thing I say. It is written in between the atoms, it
>> will be in the next version of Quantum Theory.
>
> Methinks the brain cells have bounced a bit and I think that the reason I
> rejected the fluid arrangement of miniatures on the opening page was the
> inability to return from an excursion to the enlargements with the relevant
> miniature being at the top of the page.
>
Well since your thumbs, image and enlargement pages all have a common
part of the naming convention (That is why in my ample I use PHP, built
very thing from from an array ('01-1', '01-2' , ...) you can easily
create a related ID for each thumbnail.
Just updated the page and your can see the ID's
<div id="pushpin01-1" class="pixbox">...
You can put the hash in your return link
<a href="yourpage.html#pushpin01-1">Back</a>
See for yourself:
http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/alt.html.20070216.php#pushpin06-3
Go to Thumb "06-3"
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|